Complaints, Lawyer Discipline and Public Hearings

 

Citation Authorized:  June 7, 2018 - joined with citation authorized Dec. 7/17

Homayoun Sebastian Nejat

Citations are authorized by the Law Society of BC's Discipline Committee and list allegations against a lawyer that will be considered at a discipline hearing. Please note that allegations in a citation are unproven until a discipline hearing panel has determined their validity.

Nature of conduct to be inquired into:

1.  Between approximately December 2013 and June 2017, in the course of representing AK, you failed to provide your client with the quality of service required of a competent lawyer, contrary to one or more of rules 3.1-2, 3.2-1, 3.4-1, and 7.8-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia, by doing one or more of the following:

(a)  drafting a written “asset/share purchase” agreement that contained significant problems;

(b)  failing to ensure that the written “asset/share purchase” agreement signed by your client on December 28, 2013 (the “Agreement”) accurately reflected his intentions and/or instructions;

(c)  continuing to act for your client after he testified before the Supreme Court of British Columbia in K v. E that you were to blame for not noticing that clause 3.1 of the Agreement had been changed from an earlier draft, and that it no longer reflected your client’s intentions;

(d)  failing to recommend to your client that he obtain independent legal advice in relation to his testimony in K v. E;

(e)  failing to advise your client of the possibility that you may no longer be able to act for him because of his testimony in K v. E;

(f)  representing your client in relation to an appeal of K v. E, when you knew or ought to have known that you were in a conflict of interest;

(g)  failing to properly bring an appeal of K v. E by failing to serve a filed Notice of Appeal on the opposing party within the time required to do so;

(h)  failing to take steps to advance an appeal of K v. E;

(i)  failing to answer your client’s reasonable requests for information about the status of an appeal;

(j)  failing to answer, within a reasonable time, communications from your client about an appeal that required a reply;

(k)  failing to provide your client with complete and accurate relevant information about an appeal; and

(l)  failing to advise your client that you were suspended from the practice of law between April 11, 2017 and June 28, 2017.

This conduct constitutes incompetent performance of duties undertaken in the capacity of a lawyer or professional misconduct, contrary to section 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.

2.  Between July 2016 and June 2017, in the course of representing AK in relation to an appeal of K v. E, you misled your client, contrary to one or more of rules 2.2-1 and 3.2-2 of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia, by doing one or more of the following:

(a)  indicating that substituted service could be effected on the opposing party, when you knew or ought to have known that personal service was required and you did not have an order from the court stating otherwise; and

(b)  indicating that you could proceed in default against the opposing party when you knew or ought to have known that you could not do so.

This conduct constitutes professional misconduct, contrary to section 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.

3.  In June 2017, you engaged in the practice of law while suspended, contrary to section 15 of the Legal Profession Act, by doing one or more of the following:

(a)  implying in an email dated June 1, 2017 to AK that you were qualified or entitled to give legal advice; and

(b)  meeting with AK in a professional capacity on June 9, 2017.

This conduct constitutes professional misconduct or a breach of the Act or rules, contrary to section 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.